« Horseshit Stories | Main | If You Can't Afford A New Car... »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Revkin is indeed a premium, grade A, hyperactive, non-stop, climate inactivist weenie. It is beyond me how on earth he manages to dress himself in the morning, given his obvious, complete, utter and entirely unreflective lack of the most basic common sense about the biggest issue of the 21st century. Oh, I know, let's have an Energy Quest to provide new sources of power in a century or two, instead of like, you know, something as pedestrian as actually reducing CO2 pollution NOW!

Dave Cohen


No question, Revkin is a nerdy dipshit who can not see the waving hand in front of this face.

I don't know what Michael Mann's excuse is, but so many scientists are gutless wonders. He found himself in the middle of a political controversy he didn't expect, and got a strong lesson in how humans sometimes behave.

-- Dave


Lemons into lemonade.
Just need to follow the 'smart money.'
It's all good!

Dave Cohen


Here's the original. I will have to post on this.


"Now the smart money is taking another approach: Working under the assumption that climate change is inevitable, Wall Street firms are investing in businesses that will profit as the planet gets hotter."

JFC! indeed.

-- Dave


Dave, I think scientists tend to think reason works when it doesn't. They also tend to be better at doing science stuff - research and discovery - than they are at changing people's minds or whatnot. Comparing scientists (I know quite a few) and realtors (I used to work in real estate), well, nearly every realtor and every successful realtor was much better with reading, convincing, and persuading people.

I am not sure if it is hopeless or not, like the elephant thing - they were being hunted to extinction, social change occured and they bounced back, then the Chinese got rich and they are being hunted to extinction again. Is the extinction inevitable? Maybe not. Elephants have made it to the modern era while their cousins the mammoths are all extinct. Something must have been different about society where the elephants were that prevented them from killing them all off thousands of years ago.

I think we know all we need to know about nearly every serious environmental issue. Scientists tend to think with more or better data, people will wise up. But that's not true - then again, if you can sell it to them, people will protect the environment. You need a salesman for that.

Scientists generally do not know how to deal with emotional persuasion.

G. Shon

Dave ...This is off the subject but would you either post links or email me the dates to your essays regarding your conclusions that we humans are locked and loaded to produce more kids regardless population overshoot AND we will demand to produce more "stuff" for them. I am trying to archive your ideas for my future reference. Although much of what you write about depresses me and I see our future as bleak, it is easier for me to confront it with fewer illusions. Thanks for your hard work, G. Shon

Dave Cohen

G. Shon

I sent you an e-mail.

-- Dave


Dear god, do you people know anything about graphing and smoothing?


Fell for it hook lime and sinker, WHERE DID THE HOCKEY STICK EFFECT GO!

No offence Dave, I enjoy reading your thoughts on many issues but you have stopped looking at this particular issue objectively. For someone who mocks MSM propagander you sure fall for this alarmist propagander in a New York minute. JFC.


Sorry, I should have linked the Bloomberg site myself.
Noticed it after I'd already posted.
Even more positivity opportunities to cheer.
I'm absolutely giddy.
To think at 76 a 'happy feet' attack!


I'm a little confused, banz. It seems the argument you're referencing is entirely predicated on the idea that we cannot prove beyond any doubt there wasn't some very unlikely anomalous event in the last 10,000 years, so we shouldn't worry about the current one. That argument fully ignores understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With that knowledge, we would be very surprised if there were no warming.

Also, the problem here is that the MSM is downplaying this article, not propagandizing it. Wait, were you being sarcastic? Sometimes I'm slow to pick up when it's online.


"Those global warming wingnuts are going to attack this study or basic physics or science in general regardless of what this study's proxy data resolution is, and regardless of any other reasonable interpretation of what is known about the current climate episode."

No Dave, its statistics 101, how about the authors of this paper just apply those principles rather than discarding them to come up with a "hockey stick". But then, I guess you call that science for the greater good. Why are they wingnuts Dave, because they disagree with your views? So you abuse them, how typically progessive of you :)


Hi John

John, do read all the article it uses basic principles of statistics to suggest what should have been done, It also highlights where slight of hand has been used. Just the facts John is how I view it.

Might suprise you John I agree with you on greenouse gases and climate, we may differ with regard to extent however.

Look, just use statistical principles as they should be is all I am suggesting, rather than slight of hand for impact.

By the way John, I am an Aussie, we pay the worlds highest carbon tax and we are still running deficits, my view with regard to MSM propaganda is a little diiferent than yours, assuming you are north american?

Dave Cohen

Well, it is not surprising that a global-warming denying wingnut showed up in this comment thread. Banz is not being sarcastic. He's merely crazy and doesn't know it.

Interestingly, some crazy people read here, and when I talk about crazy humans, these people don't think what I'm saying applies to them. Will wonders never cease?

John WDB's reply was good enough...

I'll just leave Banz's bullshit up so everybody reading here knows what we're up against. That link he provided certainly makes for some interesting reading ... for about 15 seconds.

-- Dave


@ John "Might suprise you John I agree with you on greenouse gases and climate, we may differ with regard to extent however."

Not denying anything Dave, was that comment not clear enough for you :)

No John WDB's reply was not good enough, he ignores statistical methodology and bypassed to GHG emissions not paying any attention to smoothing and scaling issues readily apparent in this study.

Your own comment "..that this study's proxy data resolution is, and regardless of any other reasonable interpretation of what is known about the current climate episode"

You immediately anticipated a data resolution issue with this particular study, know why, because there is one.
It was interesting "for 15 seconds" Dave, really, lets not allow proper statistical methodology to interfere with your point of view shall we :)

If mad is considering data and information in a proper manner, then I am mad, however, as its your blog, do continue to post "headlines" without actually considering the underlying data and statistical presentation of same. JFC.

The comments to this entry are closed.